This Act makes it an offence to interfere, without authority, with the wreckage of crashed, sunken and stranded military aircraft and vessels, and with associated human remains. It applies ? subject to certain conditions such as time limits ? to any aircraft or vessel in the service of any country's armed forces, whether or not its precise location is known. An area in which remains may be found can also be designated a controlled site under the act.

While the Act is limited to aircraft or vessels lost during an armed conflict, it is nevertheless relevant to international humanitarian law provisions such as those regarding the deaths of protected persons (e.g. Article 15 of the First Geneva Convention ). See also section 30 of the Army Act 1955 .

Buzzking wrote:Alright your morons let me spell it out in plan English it is Illegal to 1 To remove or touch US Personal Remains it will cost you up to 1 Million Dollars and 10 Years in Federal Pen. 2 International Law be it UNSECO or English/French/German/Japn all have laws protecting there war dead all of them have treatys with each other over this. and yes they Japan/England/Australia/New Zealand have treatys with the PNG Goverment which were signed in the mid 70s about the human remains.

Grow up and stop being a bunch of arse.

BZK

This last post of yours does not make sense unless u dont bother to read the posts u are responding to.It is not the policy of the U.S. to leave the remains of military personnel once they are discovered.

I clearly stated that the proper authorities should be contacted if remains are found.
This is the organization that handles such reports.

Mr.Chris wrote:Many gov't regs. allow for "loopholes" as well. As for the US Navy, we as taxpayers pay them to defend the country, not for historical preservation.

Let me repeat, the Navy's job is not historical preservation. Some one needs to write their congressman and put a stop to the Navy's overreaching the scope of it's mission.

Also, all obsolete Navy planes were "stricken" from the records at the end of WW2; so technically the Navy cannot continue to claim ownership.

Your wrong there Chris you really are showing your lack of knowledge on how and what the US Goverments role in preservation of aircraft, maybe you should spend sometime reading into what the USN role in preserving Naval History is. The Naval History Center is a Branch of the United States Navy its funded thru the DoD so is the Maxwell Air Force Base United States Air Force Historical Center and the Uniited States Army Historical Center located at Fort. Bragg. all are funded thru the DoD.

As for your last statement this clearly shows your lack of Navy Policey. first only about 1/3 of the US Navy aircraft from WWII were "Stricken" and of these they were Cat. A accidents. Beleive me sir I have all of the US Naval Accident records on Micro-Film. And the US Navy can claim ownership if they so desire so can the Air Force they just choice not to.

As for the US Navy look for some changes in their policey their is a new person who is incharge of NHC and he is keen to start doing some recoverys on a limited base's.(and no you just can't go and ask them to do a recovery).

1/3 of the US Navy aircraft from WWII were "Stricken" and of these they were Cat. A accidents. Beleive me sir I have all of the US Naval Accident records on Micro-Film. And the US Navy can claim ownership if they so desire so can the Air Force they just choice not to.

Roar:

Interesting, "sticken from record" implies removed from records. In fact I've know of people who have recovered these stricken aircraft before and the Navy didn't care.

Buzzking wrote:
Alright your morons let me spell it out in plan English it is Illegal to 1 To remove or touch US Personal Remains it will cost you up to 1 Million Dollars and 10 Years in Federal Pen. 2 International Law be it UNSECO or English/French/German/Japn all have laws protecting there war dead all of them have treatys with each other over this. and yes they Japan/England/Australia/New Zealand have treatys with the PNG Goverment which were signed in the mid 70s about the human remains.

Grow up and stop being a bunch of arse.

BZK

This last post of yours does not make sense unless u dont bother to read the posts u are responding to.
It is not the policy of the U.S. to leave the remains of military personnel once they are discovered.

Yes, I agree again w/Aristaeus. The above is difficult to decipher, but I think it says the UN controls msome of the laws and treaties, etc. Well, I've heard from a reliable source that the UN Laws aren't enforced.--Everyone looks the other way or ignores them. Considering the UN's reputation, I'd say since they are so compromised and weakened that their little rules are all talk and rumors.